Royal

Businesses who are Non-Compliant with Laws are at Risk of the Proverbial Set-Up

October 20, 2022

On October 5, 2022, the First Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision, finding that a disabled wheelchair-bound Florida woman, Deborah Laufer, and self-proclaimed ADA “tester” who from her computer in Florida hunts websites searching for ADA compliance violators has standing, allowing her to bring suit against a hotel on the southern coast of Maine, Acheson Hotels, LLC because it failed to identify handicapped accessible rooms. Laufer has filed hundreds of other ADA-related suits in federal courts from coast to coast, and standing was held regardless of the fact that Laufer had no real intention of booking a room. 


Laufer leaned heavily on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) in which a Black plaintiff asked Havens Realty on multiple occasions whether it had any units for rent. She was told “no,” whereas when a White plaintiff asked the same question, they were told “yes.”  There the Court held there was an injury to the Black plaintiff.


Federal regulations clearly provide that hotel reservation portals must provide enough detail to allow individuals with disabilities to know what services they can enjoy, according to 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), which Laufer alleges Acheson’s portals did not do. When a public accommodation violates the ADA and discriminates against a disabled person, the ADA and the regulations promulgated under it permit private individuals to bring enforcement actions in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.501.


When Laufer first visited Acheson’s website, she found that: it didn’t identify accessible rooms; didn’t provide an option for booking such an accessible room; and that it didn’t give her sufficient information to determine whether it was accessible to her. She also faced the same dearth of information when she visited the hotel’s reservation service using thirteen other third-party websites including: Expedia.com; Hotels.com; and Booking.com.


The moral of this story is to check whether your business, websites and all social media comply with the most up-to-date ADA regulations.


If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Employer’s Counterclaims in Response to Suit Under Wage Act Dismissed Per Employee’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Compensation Plans and Contingent Compensation Pitfalls

January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: